Posted
by
ScuttleMonkey
on Monday March 30, 2009 @02:22PM
from the i-don't-want-to-go-on-the-cart dept.

Combating the stigma that investigative journalism is dead or dying, the Huffington Post has just launched a new venture to bankroll a group of investigative journalists to take a look into stories about the nation's economy. "The popular Web site is collaborating with The Atlantic Philanthropies and other donors to launch the Huffington Post Investigative Fund with an initial budget of $1.75 million. That should be enough for 10 staff journalists who will primarily coordinate stories with freelancers, said Arianna Huffington, co-founder and editor-in-chief of The Huffington Post. Work that the journalists produce will be available for any publication or Web site to use at the same time it is posted on The Huffington Post, she said. The Huffington Post Web site is a collection of opinionated blog entries and breaking news. It has seven staff reporters. Huffington said she and the donors were concerned that layoffs at newspapers were hurting investigative journalism at a time the nation's institutions need to be watched closely. She hopes to draw from the ranks of laid-off journalists for the venture."

And slashdot is a pro-tech, pro-netneutrality, pro-science blog. Fox news has investigative journalists. No reason the left shouldn't. No reason Slashdot shouldn't. No reason why anyone with an agenda shouldn't be generating content. And at least you understand the bias when you read huffington post. It doesn't attempt to hide behind any veil like a certain other news organization.

The problem isn't whether or not there is bias it's whether or not the reader knows the bias and filters appropriately.

And slashdot is a pro-tech, pro-netneutrality, pro-science blog. Fox news has investigative journalists. No reason the left shouldn't. No reason Slashdot shouldn't. No reason why anyone with an agenda shouldn't be generating content. And at least you understand the bias when you read huffington post. It doesn't attempt to hide behind any veil like a certain other news organization.

The problem isn't whether or not there is bias it's whether or not the reader knows the bias and filters appropriately.

Actually, the left does have their investigative journalists. They work for every other outlet other than Fox News (and CNN to a much lesser extent).

And slashdot is a pro-tech, pro-netneutrality, pro-science blog. Fox news has investigative journalists. No reason the left shouldn't. No reason Slashdot shouldn't. No reason why anyone with an agenda shouldn't be generating content. And at least you understand the bias when you read huffington post. It doesn't attempt to hide behind any veil like a certain other news organization.

The problem isn't whether or not there is bias it's whether or not the reader knows the bias and filters appropriately.

Thank you. The idea of journalistic neutrality is bullshit. Go back 100 years, when each city had a dozen newspapers. All of them were wildly biased and when you picked up a newspaper, you knew what you were getting - heck, it often stated its bias or philosophy in the mast head! Go look in Europe in the pre-War years - many of the newspapers were organs of the political parties.

Pretending to be unbiased is nonsense - I'd rather have a couple papers that report ferociously with an in-the-open bias then the subtle, stupid bias (towards sensationalism) that we have in the modern, neutered American press.

He's not the only one who feels that way. Allow me to quote Wikipedia:

The Huffington Post (often referred to on the Internet as HuffPost or HuffPo) is an American liberal[1] news website and aggregated weblog founded by Arianna Huffington and Kenneth Lerer, featuring various news sources and columnists. The site covers a wide range of topics, including sections devoted to politics, entertainment, media, living, business, and the green movement.

Please read the bold part. Parent stated fact and was downmodded for it.

Mods based on opinion have no place on slashdot and are against the moderator guidelines. The Mod should have posted a reply if he/she disagreed rather abusing moderator power.

wikipedia, the source that anyone can edit is chock full of bias and in no way should be used as "fact".the use of "liberal" in that sentence is as a descriptor, which in and of itself is - biased.cue (citation needed) AC post now.;-)

I believe the big question here is whether the journalists will be provided the protection that the big newspapers could always provide. It is fine to believe in the letter of the constitution but without the backing of a major media conglomerate with deep pockets to go to bat for you when you are sued in indispensible. You may want to say something publicly against corporate America but the fear of repercussions is usually what limits individuals from doing so. So...how would they propose to protect the whistleblowers?

I tend to agree with you but given the populace's ignorance about journalism(see the idiotic replies to the original post that ignore it and instead choose it as a stepping off point for rants of the left and right political persuasion) it's hard to believe that anyone will understand the importance of what you say.

We now seem to have a generation of people who believe that only the web produces anything of importance, that anything of importance can be completely comprehended in the 30 seconds that it take

You're talking about cost and it sure seems to me that the vast majority of people who comment on the press (whether print, broadcast, or web) don't have the slightest idea about COST. It's a nasty little detail that they'd prefer to ignore.

No. Not all all.

Economic theory states that when goods and services are indistinguishable between competitors, that the consumer will always choose the cheapest one.

Of course it isn't so simple, so that's why it is specified "indistinguishable" because an inferior produc

...the backing of a major media conglomerate with deep pockets to go to bat for you when you are sued in indispensible. You may want to say something publicly against corporate America but the fear of repercussions is usually what limits individuals from doing so.

What makes you think being the backing of a major media conglomerate makes you more safe when saying something publicly against corporate America? I mean, when you consider the overlap of major media conglomerates and corporate America, it seems like backing real whistleblowers could just as easily be against the media conglomerate's interests.

I think I'd rather have a whole ton of smaller independent operations than a couple humungous umbrella companies that run the whole show.

Don't forget government. Far forabuses of the press have come from government than have come from corporations. If you piss of a company, they can pull their advertisements from your paper, but if you piss of government they can imprison you. Not just in Zimbabwe or Nicaragua, but in the U.S.! People bitch about Bush, but he was a pansy compared some former presidents. Contrary to his angelic image, Lincoln would close down newspapers and jail their editors, without trials.

Started by Chuck Lewis of the Center for Public Integrity after the Center spent over a million dollars fighting libel cases. They have never lost a libel case, but pretty soon their libel insurance company dropped them. Their opposition spent 3 million litigating a single case. Scary.

hell, i don't care what their slant is, the more people out there looking at and reporting on the economy and the government, the better. perhaps through all of the crap that comes up we might find a grain of truth

I mean apart from in the US where the media appears to have become scared of actually questioning politicians or holding them to account. Journalism in the UK still seems to find the dirt on politicians and companies and deep investigative exercises are still carried out in lots of different areas.

The basic issue in the US is the partisan nature of both politics and the media, why bother to investigate when its all basically just monkeys throwing shit at a wall. Blogs and the internet are unlikely to change that as its just going to be the same partisan stuff with slightly different shit.

When the likes of Jon Stewart are the finest investigative political journalists that your country has then you know you are in trouble.

When the likes of Jon Stewart are the finest investigative political journalists that your country has then you know you are in trouble.

There's a big difference between an investigative journalist and a talking head.

There are lots of good journalists in the US... they just don't get TV time. And since Americans can't be bothered to digest any news not provided to them in an ADD-friendly 2 minute TV blurb (or a scrolling text bar at the bottom of their TV screen), the good journalists are ignored by the public. Since they're mostly ignored, those journalists aren't paying the bills at their place of employment, so they get laid off.

Seriously... VERY few investigative journalists are recognized by name in the US, Seymour Hirsch being probably the only prominent counter-example. Since the US culture is largely dominated by celebrity, having no reporters who are celebrities means that no one cares about investigative journalism.

I think it's great the the HuffPo will be employing some of these reporters... I just hope that the editorialization at HuffPo doesn't get in the way of good journalism.

The basic issue in the US is the partisan nature of both politics and the media

Agreed, and The Huffington Post is widely regarded [washingtonpost.com] as a left leaning blog. I think objective journalism [wikipedia.org] died long before investigative journalism. I would love to see some great, old fashioned, investigative journalism, but I fear it would be extremely biased in today's media outlets.

Shattered Glass is a film about how an investigative journalist, Adam Peneberg, working for Forbes.com in 1996, exposed journalist Stephen Glass for plagiarizing nearly every article he wrote for The New Republic, a well trusted and highly respected journalistic publication.

This was considered one of the first major breakthroughs for online journalism and it happened in 1996. Online news has been filled with investigative journalism for a while.

Even wikileaks can be seen as legitimate investigative reporting and whistle blowing. http://www.wikileaks.org/ [wikileaks.org]

Shattered Glass is a film about how an investigative journalist, Adam Peneberg, working for Forbes.com in 1996, exposed journalist Stephen Glass for plagiarizing nearly every article he wrote for The New Republic, a well trusted and highly respected journalistic publication.

Stephen Glass wasn't busted for plagiarism, he was busted mostly for making up sources and facts.

A contemporary of his at TNR, Ruth Shalit, was busted (& fired) for plagiarism and factual errors.

Under Peretz (the Editor-in-Chief of TNR), TNR has lost a ton of respect in journalistic circles.

There have been more recent issues with TNR, (google Spiegel, Ackerman, or Beauchamp and The New Republic for details)... lots of factual problems and insufficient editorial oversight.

At any rate, you're correct about investigative journalism on the web... I just find it interesting that the examples you cite (sans wikileaks) deal with 'disproving' traditional print media investigative journalism. I find the web to be a great source for debunking falsehoods, but not as good for primary material... maybe I'm looking in the wrong places:)

Disconnect. Bad plan, darlings. Journalism is undergoing a paradigm shift right now in the same way graphics design underwent it. Before the 1990s, we had separate jobs for typesetting, graphic artist, layout, etc. All that went out the window when the PC came along and suddenly anyone could make a newsletter using PageMaker. The demand for all that graphic design footwork -- needing to hire a team of people to design it, imploded. What came out of it was the versatile graphic designer -- a jack of all trades. Journalism until recently had many different career paths. With the collapse of the printed media and an entire generation growing up used to the idea of instant access to everything, cross-referenced and streaming on demand -- deadlines have gone from a day to a few minutes. How long does it take to get indexed into google so people can search for your article? That time difference is the new deadline. And audiences aren't local anymore -- they are global.

Reconnect. Our collective knowledge is also heavily slanted to the global and national level now. For example, up here in Minnesota, a recent "local" story has been the flooding near Fargo, ND and Moorhead, MN along the Red river. When I asked my friends who would be willing to car pool up with me to help sandbagging efforts last friday (the story had been out for a good week) -- only one of my friends had any knowledge of the event, out of about 15 people I asked. Local news doesn't exist anymore for our generation. Strange, but true. Of course, they ALL knew about major national and global events. Our communities really are losing their geographical ties.

I see the future of journalism being somewhat akin to blogging. Journalists simply pick their own interest and self-direct their energies towards it. Interested parties will, via word of mouth and advertisement, come to know that particular journalist. A one-to-many relationship. The sources for these stories will be the readers of those stories. Slashdot is a decent example of what journalism will come to resemble -- open, online forums that are dedicated to particular communities. But I highly doubt that in the journalism to come that people will simply visit one website for their needs. It'll probably look more like Google news -- RSS feeds that we select and create lists of journalists who are involved in fields we have a mutual interest in.

Journalism will become, much like graphic design, at least half or more self-employed or contract/temp work in the next ten years. And we'll come to know journalists by name, instead of by what network or paper they represent.

only one of my friends had any knowledge of the [flooding in ND/MN], out of about 15 people I asked.

That's just weird, since the flooding has made national news so even if that was their only source they should have heard about it. Are these major national and global events mostly political in nature? If they get their news from politically-focused sources, that might explain it.

Sorry I've been "paradigmed-shifted" to death. Paradigm shifts are recognized long after the fact. Contemporaneous paradigm-shifts are not paradigm-shifts at all: they're someone trying to further their own objectives coupled with wishful thinking about the future.

I don't know how many times I've read this identical analysis about the future of journalism: all successful journalists will be BRANDS. We'll see. My guess is that in 5 years any journalists that are still around will look back at the self-promot

Having worked in the graphic design industry for at least 10 years now I have to point out that you're quite mistaken about the state of the industry.

I happened to enter the industry after computers were fully embraced by the industry but just as the internet was starting to take off. What I've found is that the perception towards graphic design has changed, but the reality of the work itself has not.

Because people have access to desktop publishing applications there has a tendency for design to be trivialized. It's all well and good for simplistic newsletters, but what I've often encountered is that once these people start trying to put something together they find themselves overwhelmed. Design wasn't about having the mechanical skills to produce a layout; it's about working with a variety of resources and using creativity, improvisation and strategy to produce work that meets particular requirements. It's common to have people look at design and claim they could do it themselves. But try doing so without copying.

As for the nature of freelancing in design, you'd be shocked by how many design companies exist out there. If anything, I think the market is over-saturated, but the fact is that the work is there. There aren't a lot of freelancers in this profession not because of a particular challenge facing the industry. There are so many of them out there because it's so competitive a market. And a lot of design companies have adopted the approach of primarily hiring freelancers because it's cost effective. It's because design has been commoditized. A lot of the same business idiots who keep outsourcing work think they can get everything on the cheap. They'd outsource design if they could, but it's almost impossible to get someone overseas to produce the kind of design work companies here need.

This brings me back to journalism and this attitude that anyone can produce this work and be good at it. There's this talk about how blogging is changing things. It is, but is it doing so in a good way? Nearly all blogs are little more than a news aggregate. All they provide in the way of content is commenting and maybe some editorializing.

This brings me to another issue. At least traditional news agencies have the pretense of being unbiased. Blogs are almost always dripping with bias and are generally unfriendly to dissenting views. Slashdot's format is better than most, but even here certain viewpoints have a tendency to be modded down. I have no problem with this, whatsoever, if it's clear the blog is more of a personal editorial. But I do have a problem when they try to pass themselves off as being impartial.

Another problem is that people want everything spoon-fed in bite-sized doses. How many people actually read full articles and don't just read sensationalist headlines and maybe skim over the summary. Blogs encourage this model.

Well, I could go on with the problems I see. And despite this I do think that the internet has real value and will probably bring about positive change. The problems I describe are probably symptoms of American media in general, but from what I've seeing the web isn't really helping.

whoa. whoa boy. A lot of good points, but you are mistaken about the level of self-employment. Read this [bls.gov]. They quote 25%. I know the amount of freelance work done is more -- even graphic designers who have a permanent position do it on the side. It's just the lifestyle we have. As to market saturation, i don't know where you live, but here in Minneapolis/St. Paul, all my contacts say we have more candidates than positions right now. And I know how many design companies are out there. I also know a lot of th

With 10 reporters, you will have a bit more administrative work, you will need someone to (more) editing and layout, and more expenses (especially if they have to travel), and more. Plus benefits. It does not translate directly into $175k apiece. Very far from it.

I haven't bought a paper in years, and the free ones that get tossed in my driveway go into the recycling bin. I get all my news off free Internet sites.

Welcome to the 21st century Huffington (and NY times, and Washington Post, et. al.) No bailout loans for those that refused to change until it was too late, or changed and couldn't figure out how to make money at it.

So you're saying that in "journalism" the writers get pampered and looked after while the Huffington Post puts them to work?

Or wait, I'm forgetting that sometimes kids get mistreated and abused in day care... So traditional newspapers would be better off if one of their parents were looking after them, but the Huffington Post is run by people with small hands?

The real issue for all online journalists is theft of content. It is difficult to create good content. Therefore it is particularly tough for those that create it if there is no traffic going to their site. Why would they bother?

There is no "content theft", only copyright infringement*. Aside from that notable correction, what exactly are you referring to - copying and pasting of entire articles, which is a blatant copyright violation? Or AP style whining about people who (gasp!) exercise their fair use rights?

*Yes, it's infringement, not theft. Deal with it. You don't have any problems seeing the difference between driving under the influence and embezzlement, or the difference between rape and arson. We have different t

Newspapers (as in "news" printed on paper) may be dead, or dying due to the medium switching to electronic distribution of information, but Journalism is far from dead.Far from it, in this age when every prepubescent teen with an agenda can slap an opinion blog and consider it news, it is more important than ever to have professionals discovering, editing and presenting information.

We are all biased - I'm biased, you are biased, he's biased. In and of itself, that doesn't have to be a bad thing - bias can be a hell of a motivator.

If $Journalist investigates $Politician because $Politician is a member of $Party and $Journalist thinks $Party are a bunch of crooks, and $Journalist's bias makes him keep digging until he finds something out and reports it, that is GOOD.

However, it is a question of reputation: If I know that $Journalist has a hate-on for $Party, I can weight what $Journalist write accordingly. If I know that $Journalist has a hate-on for $Party and lets that bias color his reporting, I can take that into account. If, on the other hand, I know that $Journalist has a hate-on for $Party, and as a result is especially scrupulous on his checking of his facts, I can take that into account as well.

If $Biased_as_Hell_website hires investigative reporters, but is careful not to spike stories from them just because it goes against their bias, then I might read them even if their bias goes against my own. But $Biased_as_Hell_website is going to have to PROVE to me, every day, that they are trying to keep their facts separate from their opinions. And if I get a whiff that they aren't, then I will ignore them from that moment onward.

And if $Journalist gets a reputation for ignoring "inconvenient facts", for going soft on his friends and hard on his foes, then I will blow him off as well.

And THAT is what is important - that these "New Media" types establish reputations I can use to judge their reporting. Be up-front with your bias - at least with DailyKos and Rush I know their biases, and can at least begin to apply a correction factor. But when somebody tries to pretend "Oh, me? I'm not biased, trust me" - I know they are lying to me, I just don't know in which direction to correct for it.

Seems to me this new investment directly addresses your problem with them. Hiring investigative reporters is the best way to become more fact-based.

That depends on what they choose to investigate and the angle they take. They might take the angle that the Bush twins are party-girl lushes and with a straight face, claim that Biden's daughter "has an addiction problem" with cocaine.

OK, here's a better example: Did the recession start under Bush's watch or did it start when Democrats took over congress? Both are true. How do you report it? Looking at Huff-Po's record of distortion and hatred, I don't have high hopes for honest, non-biased reporting.

Did the recession start when we cut taxes with a surplus of money or years later after two wars ate into the available funds leftover from "giving the extra money back?"

Nah, had to be 10 months after the Democrats took control...that makes MUCH more sense.

(Here's the answer to your question: Anyone who doesn't blame the Republicans and Bush's leash on Congress from 2001-2007 is full of shit. The Democrats get some blame, but I reduce it some by considering the Rove-ian campaign that was led from 9/11

Is it left-biased, or reality biased? It seems a lot of people that smear the current American left, have been living in the right wing bubble for the last few decades, and can't fess up to the reality bias that reality has.

Only in American can I consider myself, a centrist progressive. The state of politics here is severely depressing, so anything that pulls us out of the childish, conservative, backward looking rut we've been in, is a plus in my book.

I'm sure many right wing type people will dismiss your remark out of hand without considering it for a moment, but consider:

1) Which nation did this huge economic disaster start? America, a country that had been under complete Republican rule for 6 of the last 8 years and had undergone many deregulations over the past three decades which directly contributed to this crisis.

2) Which European countries have most felt the economic fallout of this? Iceland and Ireland, the two most free-wheeling democracies in Europe. For years Republicans would use Ireland as an example for us to follow since they had the lowest commercial tax rates in the world. Since Ireland's economy has been in free-fall I haven't heard Republicans mention them at all (I wonder why?).

3) Which European countries have been effected least? Spain and France due to their more conservative banking regulations and greater safety net for people living there.

So take a serious look at the mirror and consider the possibility that Touvan is actually correct--reality really does, in fact, have a left-wing bias (at least in terms of economic policy). The first top economic adviser to Bush 43 resigned shortly into Bush's first term because he was simply ignored and believed their economic policy would be disastrous (paying for wars with tax cuts was an extremely bad idea). It's hard to argue that he was wrong now (it really was even then...).

So why did Obama keep on so many of Bush's economic team? Geithner for example got a promotion from Goldman-Sachs to Bush's TARP administrator to Obama's Treasury Secretary. I'd suggest that there are not quite as many differences between the two parties as many on both sides like to pretend there are. Both are in favor of crony capitalism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism [wikipedia.org] Your (and since you're just repeating the party line here your party's) attempts to place blame on a fantasy deregulation straw man are... unconvincing to those who do more than accept your play on class warfare chords. Both sides are to blame for allowing so many unproductive ventures to survive for so long on the backs of the productive members of society. One of my favorite pieces on the framework for the current crisis (over last 30 years) is this one: http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2008/11/11/The-End-of-Wall-Streets-Boom [portfolio.com]

Where did I say anything about Democrats? I was using Europe purposefully since countries like France and Spain are unquestionably farther to the left than we are, especially in economic and social policy. My argument would be that the Democrat party as a whole certainly is not as far to the left as they should be.

I made a statement of fact in point one, followed by two that are technically opinions but if not correct nearly so (both economic and social pressure can be more qualitative than quantitative when using 'affected most/least').

As for Bush's economic adviser I based my remarks on his own remarks on the recent Frontline episode which interviewed him.

I'm not sure how you're getting that either. Everyone that knows him say he's extremely intelligent. However, his undergraduate degree was in government and Asian studies and his masters was in international economics and East Asian studies (he studied Chinese and Japanese).

The way I've seen 'quant' used was in regards to physicists that changed professions to financial analysts and investors.

Which nation did this huge economic disaster start? America, a country that had been under complete Republican rule for 6 of the last 8 years and had undergone many deregulations over the past three decades which directly contributed to this crisis.

First, if you think that the economic "disaster" can be attributed to a specific political party, then you a playing the part written for you quite nicely.

Second, true free markets are not guaranteed to be always upward moving; failures and downturns are part of

I didn't say it could be pinned on a particular political party, but to an idea (basically, deregulation is good and the government is the enemy).

We put in place many regulations after the Great Depression that worked great until we weakened them over the past three decades and now we are going to strengthen them again which will surely prevent another crisis like we're facing now (until they are weakened sometime in the future by people of similar mind as the ones that weakened them recently).

I'm sure many right wing type people will dismiss your remark out of hand without considering it for a moment, but consider:

1) Which nation did this huge economic disaster start? America, a country that had been under complete Republican rule for 6 of the last 8 years and had undergone many deregulations over the past three decades which directly contributed to this crisis.

BZZZTTTT! Wrong! First, Republicans never really controlled anything. Remember "Jumping" Jim Jeffords? He was the Republican who turned Independent to give control of the Senate back to the Democrats after the first Congressional election of Bush's term. Even the next election when Republicans took control of both houses, they only did by a couple of votes and couldn't pass anything without Democrats filibustering it. The next election, Democrats took over congress right about the time the economy ta

Even the next election when Republicans took control of both houses, they only did by a couple of votes and couldn't pass anything without Democrats filibustering it.

Between this and the Heritage foundation links, it is easy to see why your comments are so laughable.

I'll counter the quoted claim easily: Why did it take 6+ years for Bush to veto something? Answer: Because nothing got on his desk that he didn't ask for. So much for Democrats having such power over the Republican majority. Your claim is hilarious given the fact that the Republicans never let the Democrats sniff a hint of power during those 6 years. It's no wonder we're being screwed right now by a De

France has strikes all the time, year after year as far back as I can remember. Strikes are somewhat part of the culture there.

You can lose your job there and not face losing your medical insurance or going hungry. There's a huge difference in terms of the human cost of this financial disaster between France and the US in addition to the differences in growth/shrinkage of GDP.

Then why is France and others in far better financial shape than we are (heck, even China is in a better position)? Are they running huge deficits? Nope. Do they have massive federal debts? Nope. Do they have problems with getting everyone insurance? Nope. People living there also have about twice as many vacation days as we do in America.

Sure, they pay more in taxes but they also get a lot in return (like superior infrastructure, transit, health care, etc) and a more stable economy to boot. It's nothing li

I never understood the "reality has a liberal bias" line. What is that supposed to mean? That reality thinks that universal health care is good? That taxing is generally the best solution instead of cutting programs? Can someone explain this to me?

I personally think that reality has a half libertarian bias. People want to be free and left to their own, except when they have the opportunity to mess with someone else's life.

Umm. That's correct. Or is the rest of the world not proof enough for you? You know, the world in which everyone else spends less, per capita, on healthcare than the US while covering more people?

That taxing is generally the best solution instead of cutting programs?

When did that become an either-or decision?

Can someone explain this to me?

Okay, let's see, examples:

1) Evolution is real and happens, creationism is bollocks.2) Sex education is good, abstinence-only education does not, and has never, worked.3) Government involvement in industry (regulations for safety, to avoid systemic risk, etc) is, in fact, sometimes a good thing.4) Government *can* provide useful services that private industry cannot, or cannot offer cheaply and effectively (healthcare and related social safety nets, various infrastructure development, etc).

That's just a few off the top of my head. I'm sure you can come up with others if you just think about it for a few moments.

Are you saying that the 30-50% tax rates that most European countries pay are somehow less than the $400/month I pay to insure a family of three?

But how typical is that $400/month? Try insuring a family after some of the family members have had significant health issues and includes family members over 45. You will find that $1000/month is not enough for coverage and probably $1500-$2000/month is a more realistic figure. Many older people who buy their own insurance have little option except to buy "catas

Are you suggesting that 100% of income taxes on Europeans go to health care? If so, are you suggesting this because you're stupid, or are you actively trying to deceive people?

$400 a month for a family plan? A decade ago when I worked at an HMO and wrote proposals, family plans were way more expensive than that. (I believe they were on the order of $800 a month, but it has been a long time.) You either have really crappy insurance, live in a weird situation, or (my guess), you're ignoring your employer

Not all taxes and health care systems are created equal. Some are better than others. Many of the taxes we now have are outright thievery, as is how our healthcare system (the one Nixon set up) is paid for. The changes proposed by Bush (New Freedom Initiative) and Obama are both going to make things worse, both in costs and in privacy.

People had good healthcare well before our government decided to try and "fix"

I never understood the "reality has a liberal bias" line. What is that supposed to mean? That reality thinks that universal health care is good? That taxing is generally the best solution instead of cutting programs? Can someone explain this to me?

I don't have a source, but I always assumed the line "reality has a liberal bias" was a satirical reference to the phrase "reality-based community", which entered the popular lexicon via a Ron Suskind article entitled Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush [nytimes.com]. The relevant grafs:

In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

Whenever someone tells me that they think the phrase "reality-based community" is an example of the smug and snide attitude of liberals, I direct them to that article.

Doesn't work so well when your neighbor wants to be left alone working on his 'home grown' nuclear reactor.

Gov't exists because by definition, some of my interests will interfere with some of your interests. We like having cops on the streets (and on Wall Street!) and that costs money, hence we need to pay taxes. There may be valid arguments for and against individual tax or spending issue, but in the end you need to tax in order to be able to provide

When you say "reality biased" do you mean "based on measurable events, peer-reviewed science, or statistics for which source data is freely available" or do you mean "agrees with my preconceived notions"?

Because so often when I hear people speak of "reality biased" they seem to mean the latter rather than the former.

Is it left-biased, or reality biased? It seems a lot of people that smear the current American left, have been living in the right wing bubble for the last few decades, and can't fess up to the reality bias that reality has.

Only in American can I consider myself, a centrist progressive. The state of politics here is severely depressing, so anything that pulls us out of the childish, conservative, backward looking rut we've been in, is a plus in my book.

Reality is how you spin it. Sure, MSNBC can interview two documentary producers to appear non-biased, but treat them both very differently. HERE [newsbusters.org] is an example.

Yes, NewsBusters is a "right-wing" site, however, they do post the entire transcript so you can make up your own mind.

Additionally, Hall offered almost no tough questions, instead tossing softballs such as "What is your observation, having been [to Afghanistan] recently, regarding the Obama administration's plans?" Uninterrupted, Greenwald was allowed to later assert, "Well, again, remember that many people there believe that troops are not the answer. Troops contribute to the problem." He also instructed that the U.S. should send 17,000 teachers instead of soldiers. At the close of the interview, he complained, "But, I think we all get trapped in, as one of my friends in Afghanistan said, 'Shoot first. Think later.'"

In contrast, on January 9, when MSNBC host David Shuster interviewed John Ziegler about his movie on the media's treatment of Sarah Palin, the anchor got into a heated argument with the filmmaker, repeatedly challenging the "conservative documentary's" thesis and deriding, "John, you and Sarah Palin can't take any responsibility for the fact that she wasn't prepared to run for vice president."

Is it really a journalists job to state as fact that Sarah Palin wasn't prepared to run for VP? Regardless of your "opinion" of Sarah Palin, it's just that, an OPINION, and JOURNALISTS shouldn't be spouting theirs. It's not their j

Is it really a journalists job to state as fact that Sarah Palin wasn't prepared to run for VP? Regardless of your "opinion" of Sarah Palin, it's just that, an OPINION, and JOURNALISTS shouldn't be spouting theirs. It's not their job.

I think you are confusing news reporting with interviewing. It is the responsibility of interviewers to probe the interviewees. If that requires making statements to prompt a response from the interviewee, then so be it. Let me suggest that you watch the ORIGINAL Frost/Nixon

Reality does not have a liberal bias. If anything it is conservative; conservation of energy, linear and angular momentum, etc...

If you look at the true political spectrum, the far left is total government control and the far right is anarchy (no government). Looking at it that way both the Democrat and Republican corporations are well to the left. It doesn't matter which party gets into power because both do nothing but increase government control over everyone's life.

HuffPo is an extreme left-wing wannabe news outlet. By investigate, what they really mean is "smear machine."

I think that whether you like the Huffington Post is beside the point: they're going to pay investigative reporters. For a little while now, lots of people have been concerned about the fact that newspapers are dying off and have asked the question, "How will get get our news now?"

The reason lots of people have said that sites like the Huffington Post can't be considered "replacements" for newspapers is that they don't have investigative reporters that actually find and generate news stories. What they do is more like aggregate news and op-ed pieces, so if newspapers die, they'll have nothing to aggregate. And that's a valid complaint.

However, if these sites start getting big enough to employ their own reporters and they start actually doing their own investigations, then the death of newspapers becomes less of a scary prospect. Right now, the Huffington Post is just one example of people trying to find a business model that allows for real journalism without the need of an actual printed newspaper. If some successful business models are found, then we might just be ok.

But you're pointing out that the Huffington Post has a slant, and that's a fair thing to note. However, print newspapers also each have their own slant, so it's not really anything new.

Not at all? Here's one clue: "extreme left-wing" is an emotive term, lacking in objectivity when you compare the Huffington Post to extreme sites like DailyKos on left, or Powerline on right.

Headlines show bias pretty quickly...

In which case, you should try reading the headlines. Currently, it is "WHITE HOUSE STRUGGLES TO CONTRAST WALL STREET AND AUTO BAILOUTS" as they criticize the Obama administration for being biased towards Wall St. The sub-headline is "More Fin